John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons To Fear a President Barack Obama And A Democrat Congress
Posted by Larry Perrault at 3:52 PM 1 comments
Labels: abortion, cap. Obama, defense, economy, education, Foreign, freedom, judge, judiciary, marriage, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Security, social, speech
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources.
7) Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
8) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
9) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
10) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Sunday, November 2, 2008
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources. Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
7) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
8) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
9) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources. Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
7) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
8) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
9) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Polls Are Misleading, Not Dishonest - How Is That?
Oh, a few wild polls from known biased sources are suspect, perhaps sampling and phrasing questions so as to suit their hopes. But, most polls like Gallup, Rasmussen and Zogby for instance, are honest. But, they routinely underestimate the Republican showing in national elections. Just in the last one, Kerry was an average of 6 points ahead on the day of the election. He lost. Republicans always strongly out perform what the polls suggest. Why is that?
I was thinking about that, and a question occurred to me: Do pollsters over-sample in cities? City people are more likely to be too occupied to vote. And, rural populations are more likely to be animated by fears generated by national media coverage.
This year, Obama and his enthusiasts in the media have generated extraordinary fervor. And, there is a corollary enthusiasm among conservatives and in rural areas, which has gotten an extra kick from Sarah Palin (a lot of eggheads are dubious, but boy did McCain make the right pick).
My first prediction is that there will be a record turnout on both sides.
My second prediction is that like other Republicans, McCain will outperform what is reflected in the polls. Those red states where Obama leads or trails slightly? They’ll go to McCain. He’ll hold Ohio (if fraud is sorted out), North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. If Obama doesn’t hold Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, he’s in definite trouble, and McCain may show close in any or all of them.
But assuming they both hold all those states, it may come down to Virginia, which has been trending decidedly purple, toward blue. Outside of Alexandria and the other DC suburbs, McCain will win big with a strong turnout. But, that suburban and heavily populated area has been turning strongly blue. Obama needs to generate a big turnout. But remember that in DC and its suburbs, McCain is hardly a stranger and known as a maverick (yes, I know the word has become overused, but that doesn’t change the meaning. Anyway, watch Virginia.
Possible surprises? First, I’ll go with New Mexico, which polls have not even been showing as a tossup, but solid blue. But demographically, it raises some questions. I think most of the so-called “Bradley effect” is accountable not to racism, but to misleading pollsters for the sake of perception. In any case, to whatever extent there is a Bradley effect; New Mexico is well-defined for it. It isn’t a big electoral number, but if the election is close…? But if Virginia is the decider, New Mexico may not make a difference. Secondly for surprises, I’d look at Pennsylvania. The polls have Obama in a comfortable lead and I still give it to him. But, those bitter Western Pennsylvanian clingers to guns and religion and “Joe the Plumber” types might make a statement (Murtha’s racist comment might help too). Pennsylvania may be close, but also most vulnerable among the blue states. And it’s elect, swingorally BIG. Basically, Obama doesn’t win without Pennsylvania.
The last big question is what will develop in disputes and challenges to the vote. This year, it seems exceptionally likely that Democrats will charge voter suppression AND Republicans will charge vote fraud. Maybe we’ll be spared by a decisive verdict. But it looks like it could be very close, and if it is, hold on to your hats. It might make Florida in 2000 look like a tea party.
I was thinking about that, and a question occurred to me: Do pollsters over-sample in cities? City people are more likely to be too occupied to vote. And, rural populations are more likely to be animated by fears generated by national media coverage.
This year, Obama and his enthusiasts in the media have generated extraordinary fervor. And, there is a corollary enthusiasm among conservatives and in rural areas, which has gotten an extra kick from Sarah Palin (a lot of eggheads are dubious, but boy did McCain make the right pick).
My first prediction is that there will be a record turnout on both sides.
My second prediction is that like other Republicans, McCain will outperform what is reflected in the polls. Those red states where Obama leads or trails slightly? They’ll go to McCain. He’ll hold Ohio (if fraud is sorted out), North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. If Obama doesn’t hold Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, he’s in definite trouble, and McCain may show close in any or all of them.
But assuming they both hold all those states, it may come down to Virginia, which has been trending decidedly purple, toward blue. Outside of Alexandria and the other DC suburbs, McCain will win big with a strong turnout. But, that suburban and heavily populated area has been turning strongly blue. Obama needs to generate a big turnout. But remember that in DC and its suburbs, McCain is hardly a stranger and known as a maverick (yes, I know the word has become overused, but that doesn’t change the meaning. Anyway, watch Virginia.
Possible surprises? First, I’ll go with New Mexico, which polls have not even been showing as a tossup, but solid blue. But demographically, it raises some questions. I think most of the so-called “Bradley effect” is accountable not to racism, but to misleading pollsters for the sake of perception. In any case, to whatever extent there is a Bradley effect; New Mexico is well-defined for it. It isn’t a big electoral number, but if the election is close…? But if Virginia is the decider, New Mexico may not make a difference. Secondly for surprises, I’d look at Pennsylvania. The polls have Obama in a comfortable lead and I still give it to him. But, those bitter Western Pennsylvanian clingers to guns and religion and “Joe the Plumber” types might make a statement (Murtha’s racist comment might help too). Pennsylvania may be close, but also most vulnerable among the blue states. And it’s elect, swingorally BIG. Basically, Obama doesn’t win without Pennsylvania.
The last big question is what will develop in disputes and challenges to the vote. This year, it seems exceptionally likely that Democrats will charge voter suppression AND Republicans will charge vote fraud. Maybe we’ll be spared by a decisive verdict. But it looks like it could be very close, and if it is, hold on to your hats. It might make Florida in 2000 look like a tea party.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube and his personal site .
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qforjC64Hfs and his personal site http://sethadamsmith.blogspot.com/
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qforjC64Hfs and his personal site http://sethadamsmith.blogspot.com/
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
Monday, October 6, 2008
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Distressing Stories, The Polls, And A Typically Misleading TV Report
I completed the comments below on Monday, which related my distress at reports from people of whom I would expect differently, who affirm or even dabble with the intention to support Obama and/or oppose McCain. At the bottom, I report current national polls which show McCain having moved into a lead over Obama, while acknowledging that they still suggest a definite Obama lead from an Electoral College standpoint. Monday, even the Rasmussen poll which Sunday showed a tie in its daily tracking poll shows McCain to have nudged into a 1% lead, which they conceded is statistically insignificant. But more notably, in Rasmussen’s current Electoral College breakdown, McCain is shown to have moved within ten points of Obama. And further, with some awareness of the status of these states, I would conjecture that McCain will take at least two of the three states listed as toss-ups which would imply a narrow victory. In every analysis I have looked at, that third state is the most clearly and evenly divided and up-in-the-air: Virginia. I will say that relative to Virginia, Obama needs to maintain the emotional magic that has driven much of his support, because I think those emotionally stoked in Virginia about McCain-Palin will reliably turn out. Further, among the states listed as “leaning” Republican, I would at this point agree that McCain will win them all, while among those listed as “leaning” Democrat, I would consider 3 or 4 of them still in play. In short, for the first time (and this could still change with a dramatic event or report), I would project that McCain would win were the election held today.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
Friday, September 5, 2008
McCain-Palin And What Conservatism Means
A friend who was a fellow Huckabee supporter left a few comments about McCain and Palin. The first few raised questions about McCain playing more to the right, so as to lose the Independent and conservative Democrat support he once enjoyed, and also questioning Palin’s record on “values” issues. I have heard these sorts of remarks before, usually from the Democratic left. Actually, though sometimes I wish he would and still hope he will, McCain has not recanted on any of his supposedly moderate positions that defy conservative orthodoxy, save for offshore drilling, and I doubt the doubling of gas prices is incidental to that. He has always expressed a pro-life disposition. He has always been one of the biggest spending hawks in The Senate, even confronting his own party and if Republicans retook Congress, I don’t think that would stop. And, he has NEVER supported a tax-increase. Some report his support for continuing the “Bush” tax-cuts, since he originally voted against them. As he often explains, he voted against the tax cuts because despite his warnings, they were not offset with spending cuts.
Anyone who really starkly regards his support for continuing a lowered tax rates, as a turnabout from his insistence on spending cuts at the beginning, has a very unrefined view of economics, as most Democrats do, assuming they are sincere. At bottom, economic principles and incentives are about human nature. Taxes and spending should both be cut, but to discontinue a tax reduction is to support what will be a tax increase and the related reactions of human nature. Evidence of the psychological component of human nature is that Bull Clinton increased tax increases while pursuing free trade and other reforms that managed to maintain the positive outlook and healthy economy that many conservatives would have expected to be injured.
I have also seen questions from the left about Palin having cut ostensibly good (when they are passed, aren’t they all?) But, a seemingly worthy objective f a program is no guard whatsoever against wasteful and inefficient consumption of resources. For a large example, any true student of The Constitution understands that national defense is a primary responsibility of the federal government. Yet anyone over forty who has paid attention recalls stories of outlandish expenses on defense department items. John McCain was a third-generation member of the military in his family (his sons are a 4th generation) and a defense hawk. Yet he has opposed unnecessarily extravagant defense spending. Many decades ago, General Eisenhower who saw the Word War ii victory, warned against the growth and appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”
Whether an ostensive objective is worthwhile or not, we are after all, talking about federal government bureaucracies, about which conservatives are rightly guarded. Coming from a social conservative, these expressed concerns sound like an expression of the reported expanded agenda of social conservatives these days. We can debate which interest the federal government should pursue and how those interests might be effectively addressed. But, it’s never wise to be unwatchful of ANY government program. And, to fall into the popular culture measure of concern and expression for a nominal cause based on the number or percentage of dollars spent is a critical mistake, Based on what I’ve seen, I’m more inclined to see Palin having worked to squeeze waste of taxpayers’ dollars, wherever possible, the ostensive cause notwithstanding. I’m sorry, but to ascribe indifference to an individual based on prudence in investments is a misguided and crude way to view things, however popular it may be.
A third comment more directly raised a feeling of discomfort with Sarah Palin. In fact, I saw a very positive report today, from one polling organization. But regardless, here’s the comment and response:
“Weren't you just a bit disturbed by Palin's speech last night, and the almost total lack of addressing issues? Obama listed the issues out, cited facts that pointed to the problem, and offered a solution to each one. Palin resorted to attacks, defensiveness, and left me wondering if she even believes there are problems with the economy, or the war, or if she lives in the same world we do. I was disappointed, not only with the content, but with the resorting to attacks, which is almost an admission that you don't have anything to talk about.”
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "disturbed" about Sarah Palin's speech. Although, I would have been happy if she could have made persuasive points while perhaps being a tad less "tart." But, generally, I am very taken with her.
I'd like to clarify what you are thinking, and let me clarify myself.
A visceral reaction might wonder if you only differ with Obama on social issues, as of course do I. But, I want to be clear about on what things I agree with Obama. Interpret rhetoric how you will. But, in terms of policy I agree with Obama on precisely NOTHING.
I frequently have to engage accusations or insinuations that I am a "one issue voter," because I think the respect and protection of human life is a primary value of a civil society. It isn’t ONLY about dead babies, which historically God has always dealt with. But, a society that behaves with disregard for this primary value is infected with a "Sickness unto Death," as Kierkegaard described the more general human existential condition. Civility is driving on cruise control on the path to social destruction: conscience is in a decline that will be manifest in myriad expressions of social conduct.
But because I see abortion as an extreme and paradigmatic expression of social illness, does not mean that I am a "one issue voter." As I have repeatedly explained, I have been conservative as long as I have been conscious. Politics does not matter to me ONLY because abortion offends me. You are my age: I did not just come to conservatism because of Roe v. Wade and the social activism that was injected into the Reagan campaign.
People talk about social, economic, and defense conservatives. I was conservative before "social" conservatism existed. At bottom, it has to do with my convictions about human nature and practical treatment of it.
NOW, a popular caricature of conservatism is that it implies hostility or indifference to other human beings. Also given human nature, there naturally ARE people like that. But, that has NOTHING to do with conservative philosophy. That's why I felt so strongly about Huckabee: he emphatically expressed the opposite idea, while at the same time acknowledging those elements of human nature that made him become a Republican in the first place.
More specifically, if I believed that the prescriptions advocated by the left would actually help people, I would favor them. But, it isn't adequate to say that I don't believe that. I KNOW that the underlying propositions are false and the programs themselves are not only unhelpful, they are destructive. AND, THEY ARE MOST DESTRUCTIVE TO THE PEOPLE THEY PRESUME TO HELP!
On one end, they dampen the initiative for improving one's own life circumstance. On the other end, they constrict opportunity in the society in general. It's a double-whammy. This imperishable idea that we are going to help those without by taxing those with is, to use a more innocuous word, twaddle. You will never punish successful people by taxing them 5, 10, or even 50 percent more. The very wealthy will not miss one glass of wine, one luxury car, or one world-traveling vacation. No, what dies is the money that is invested into the economy that opens new opportunities for those less fortunate. Envy is not good for the soul OR FOR THE BODY! The world was created that way.
So, it doesn't matter what Obama lists or talks about or advocates. NONE OF IT WILL HELP! I don't know the man, personally, so I can't and should say what he thinks. But logically, I can say that if he believes what he says, he has breathed deeply of an academic unreality: it's foolishness. And obviously, if he DOESN'T believe what he's saying, he is a fraud and a manipulator: a charlatan.
Honestly, I still wish Huckabee were the nominee and HE had picked Palin. But, John McCain is not without compassion. His is just not as meticulous a mind. However, in the executive branch for the next four years, McCain-Palin may go farthest in undermining extravagance and corruption in Washington. We need to abandon the misguided impulses and construct new and positive ones.
I was also glad that Romney was not selected. In his latest incarnation, he plays that caricature of the aggravated conservative. We need a positive conservative like Huckabee. If Palin isn't already, I think with age she can become that.
Anyone who really starkly regards his support for continuing a lowered tax rates, as a turnabout from his insistence on spending cuts at the beginning, has a very unrefined view of economics, as most Democrats do, assuming they are sincere. At bottom, economic principles and incentives are about human nature. Taxes and spending should both be cut, but to discontinue a tax reduction is to support what will be a tax increase and the related reactions of human nature. Evidence of the psychological component of human nature is that Bull Clinton increased tax increases while pursuing free trade and other reforms that managed to maintain the positive outlook and healthy economy that many conservatives would have expected to be injured.
I have also seen questions from the left about Palin having cut ostensibly good (when they are passed, aren’t they all?) But, a seemingly worthy objective f a program is no guard whatsoever against wasteful and inefficient consumption of resources. For a large example, any true student of The Constitution understands that national defense is a primary responsibility of the federal government. Yet anyone over forty who has paid attention recalls stories of outlandish expenses on defense department items. John McCain was a third-generation member of the military in his family (his sons are a 4th generation) and a defense hawk. Yet he has opposed unnecessarily extravagant defense spending. Many decades ago, General Eisenhower who saw the Word War ii victory, warned against the growth and appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”
Whether an ostensive objective is worthwhile or not, we are after all, talking about federal government bureaucracies, about which conservatives are rightly guarded. Coming from a social conservative, these expressed concerns sound like an expression of the reported expanded agenda of social conservatives these days. We can debate which interest the federal government should pursue and how those interests might be effectively addressed. But, it’s never wise to be unwatchful of ANY government program. And, to fall into the popular culture measure of concern and expression for a nominal cause based on the number or percentage of dollars spent is a critical mistake, Based on what I’ve seen, I’m more inclined to see Palin having worked to squeeze waste of taxpayers’ dollars, wherever possible, the ostensive cause notwithstanding. I’m sorry, but to ascribe indifference to an individual based on prudence in investments is a misguided and crude way to view things, however popular it may be.
A third comment more directly raised a feeling of discomfort with Sarah Palin. In fact, I saw a very positive report today, from one polling organization. But regardless, here’s the comment and response:
“Weren't you just a bit disturbed by Palin's speech last night, and the almost total lack of addressing issues? Obama listed the issues out, cited facts that pointed to the problem, and offered a solution to each one. Palin resorted to attacks, defensiveness, and left me wondering if she even believes there are problems with the economy, or the war, or if she lives in the same world we do. I was disappointed, not only with the content, but with the resorting to attacks, which is almost an admission that you don't have anything to talk about.”
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "disturbed" about Sarah Palin's speech. Although, I would have been happy if she could have made persuasive points while perhaps being a tad less "tart." But, generally, I am very taken with her.
I'd like to clarify what you are thinking, and let me clarify myself.
A visceral reaction might wonder if you only differ with Obama on social issues, as of course do I. But, I want to be clear about on what things I agree with Obama. Interpret rhetoric how you will. But, in terms of policy I agree with Obama on precisely NOTHING.
I frequently have to engage accusations or insinuations that I am a "one issue voter," because I think the respect and protection of human life is a primary value of a civil society. It isn’t ONLY about dead babies, which historically God has always dealt with. But, a society that behaves with disregard for this primary value is infected with a "Sickness unto Death," as Kierkegaard described the more general human existential condition. Civility is driving on cruise control on the path to social destruction: conscience is in a decline that will be manifest in myriad expressions of social conduct.
But because I see abortion as an extreme and paradigmatic expression of social illness, does not mean that I am a "one issue voter." As I have repeatedly explained, I have been conservative as long as I have been conscious. Politics does not matter to me ONLY because abortion offends me. You are my age: I did not just come to conservatism because of Roe v. Wade and the social activism that was injected into the Reagan campaign.
People talk about social, economic, and defense conservatives. I was conservative before "social" conservatism existed. At bottom, it has to do with my convictions about human nature and practical treatment of it.
NOW, a popular caricature of conservatism is that it implies hostility or indifference to other human beings. Also given human nature, there naturally ARE people like that. But, that has NOTHING to do with conservative philosophy. That's why I felt so strongly about Huckabee: he emphatically expressed the opposite idea, while at the same time acknowledging those elements of human nature that made him become a Republican in the first place.
More specifically, if I believed that the prescriptions advocated by the left would actually help people, I would favor them. But, it isn't adequate to say that I don't believe that. I KNOW that the underlying propositions are false and the programs themselves are not only unhelpful, they are destructive. AND, THEY ARE MOST DESTRUCTIVE TO THE PEOPLE THEY PRESUME TO HELP!
On one end, they dampen the initiative for improving one's own life circumstance. On the other end, they constrict opportunity in the society in general. It's a double-whammy. This imperishable idea that we are going to help those without by taxing those with is, to use a more innocuous word, twaddle. You will never punish successful people by taxing them 5, 10, or even 50 percent more. The very wealthy will not miss one glass of wine, one luxury car, or one world-traveling vacation. No, what dies is the money that is invested into the economy that opens new opportunities for those less fortunate. Envy is not good for the soul OR FOR THE BODY! The world was created that way.
So, it doesn't matter what Obama lists or talks about or advocates. NONE OF IT WILL HELP! I don't know the man, personally, so I can't and should say what he thinks. But logically, I can say that if he believes what he says, he has breathed deeply of an academic unreality: it's foolishness. And obviously, if he DOESN'T believe what he's saying, he is a fraud and a manipulator: a charlatan.
Honestly, I still wish Huckabee were the nominee and HE had picked Palin. But, John McCain is not without compassion. His is just not as meticulous a mind. However, in the executive branch for the next four years, McCain-Palin may go farthest in undermining extravagance and corruption in Washington. We need to abandon the misguided impulses and construct new and positive ones.
I was also glad that Romney was not selected. In his latest incarnation, he plays that caricature of the aggravated conservative. We need a positive conservative like Huckabee. If Palin isn't already, I think with age she can become that.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Come To McCain and a REAL CHANGE
As I recall, the last time I wished to post an exchange, this person preferred not to be identified and I haven’t a last name, anyway. Anyway, I thought this discussion with a heretofore McCain doubter was important. Many should consider what is at stake. And ironically, what is at stake is CHANGE. Here is the comment and my response:
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Experience Schmexperience!
It was predictable that the other side would try to light on the “experience” issue relative to Governor Sarah Palin, which they’ve reliably done. And frankly, for that reason, I expected her inevitable time was “not yet.” I was wrong about that, but am elated about the choice. I’ve known for a year that she was a positive force and as I’ve learned and seen more of her, she looks progressively better, now seemingly every day: from good to great to inevitable and now to terrific and unprecedentedly promising for the nation.
As for the experience matter, as I said, I thought we’d leave this filet mignon on the grill for a little while longer. But as is now known, she has significant executive leadership experience: more than Obama, who has NONE. But, however one gauges the “experience” matter, I’ve been saying for many days that Republicans should not have been emphasizing the “experience” issue above the philosophical one. “Experience” is WAAAY overrated. Why do I care what supposed experience someone has if it is a long record of being wrong?
Based on this supposedly preeminent qualification of experience, suppose the Democrat ticket were what might then be called “right-side up,” with Joe Biden at the top who has more experience in elected office and national foreign policy than even John McCain. Would I then question whether Biden was better qualified than John McCain to be president? Of course not!
Don’t we all have personal contacts (lots in my case) that we think would be a more clear and resolute than the majority of politicians present and past, stained as most of term are by the calculations of politics? The bottom-line is that in fact, “experience” (whatever that is – you know some faces and names?) matters relatively little.
Sarah Palin has proven herself extremely qualified personally, practically, philosophically and as an assertive executive. Subsequent to McCain’s selection of her, I have gone from tentative and hopeful to inspired and enthused about the future. I have judged that McCain seems genuinely passionate and decent, while apparently philosophically ambiguous, and have often questioned his judgments. Whether we credit him or God, I judge that McCain could not made a more effective and productive selection. A potentially murky future now looks bright and promising.
As for the experience matter, as I said, I thought we’d leave this filet mignon on the grill for a little while longer. But as is now known, she has significant executive leadership experience: more than Obama, who has NONE. But, however one gauges the “experience” matter, I’ve been saying for many days that Republicans should not have been emphasizing the “experience” issue above the philosophical one. “Experience” is WAAAY overrated. Why do I care what supposed experience someone has if it is a long record of being wrong?
Based on this supposedly preeminent qualification of experience, suppose the Democrat ticket were what might then be called “right-side up,” with Joe Biden at the top who has more experience in elected office and national foreign policy than even John McCain. Would I then question whether Biden was better qualified than John McCain to be president? Of course not!
Don’t we all have personal contacts (lots in my case) that we think would be a more clear and resolute than the majority of politicians present and past, stained as most of term are by the calculations of politics? The bottom-line is that in fact, “experience” (whatever that is – you know some faces and names?) matters relatively little.
Sarah Palin has proven herself extremely qualified personally, practically, philosophically and as an assertive executive. Subsequent to McCain’s selection of her, I have gone from tentative and hopeful to inspired and enthused about the future. I have judged that McCain seems genuinely passionate and decent, while apparently philosophically ambiguous, and have often questioned his judgments. Whether we credit him or God, I judge that McCain could not made a more effective and productive selection. A potentially murky future now looks bright and promising.
Friday, August 22, 2008
McCain's VP Pick: Romney, Huckabee...?
The Politico has reported a planned meeting with McCain in Missouri of Huckabee and Romney just before the convention and after NcCain’s projected announcement of a running-mate. Actually, I’m pretty weary of all the speculation and supposed eagerness about McCain’s VP pick. Obviously, I’m a big Huckabee fan and would personally think the country would be better off with him poised as an advisor and presumptive heir. And, I also think Huckabee would animate what is as large and vital constituency as either party has: not only for voting themselves but for providing essential campaign elbow grease.
But, I’m also well-aware of the buzz out there for Mitt Romney, which I only marginally understand. To me, Romney is neither philosophically clear nor, partially consequentially, reliable. Actually, I wouldn’t speculate that either will be the pick. And, I wouldn’t terribly blame McCain for passing on Huckabee, even though I think he is manifestly the best candidate, both for the general election campaign and the future of the country. But, the facts are these:
Huckabee and Romney both have large activist Republican followings. However, and if “hate” is too strong a word it is only partially and marginally so, Romney’s supporters hate Huckabee and Huckabee supporters don’t like Romney. That includes me. It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with Romney’s words and actions. Romney strikes me as plainly philosophically ambiguous (and that’s the last thing that McCain needs) and apparently quite politically malleable. Even if he’s entirely genuine is his most recent manifestation (as Dick Morris says: his flip-flop-flip, from A to B and back again) that displays an ambiguous mind and a late embrace of what has been clear as a bell to me for forty years. And, he’s supposed to be this economic genius. Well precisely, he’s proven at the micro-success of individual companies and investors. As for the prosperity of the macro-economy in general and all Americans, I have seen nothing from him. Huckabee on the other hand advocated for The Fair Tax, which would open up both a great capital infusion into the economy and multiply opportunities for everyone. That’s another thing that doesn’t excite me about Romney: he is a caricature of a rich man for the rich that the Democrats will pummel, and they are to some small degree right about that. Heck, they are already trying to portray McCain as an out-of-touch rich man!
But as for Huckabee, there are both LDS people who are (unjustifiably but honestly, I think) distrustful of him, and economic conservatives who bought the phony and unjust “Huckabee’s a liberal” political smears and/or smart at his mere mention of concern for “Main Street” or average people and attention to Democrat-dominated Demographic groups, which are ironically the people that we must sell on conservatism. Obviously, many people on both sides of the Democrat-Republican divide prefer a more conventional blood- hatred: the kind in which both decency and Republicans lose. I think Huckabee can himself, address those populations, and should be charged to do so. But, that may be too complicated for McCain and his advisors.
If Huckabee and Romney are off the table, I’d probably favor Pawlenty.
But, I’m also well-aware of the buzz out there for Mitt Romney, which I only marginally understand. To me, Romney is neither philosophically clear nor, partially consequentially, reliable. Actually, I wouldn’t speculate that either will be the pick. And, I wouldn’t terribly blame McCain for passing on Huckabee, even though I think he is manifestly the best candidate, both for the general election campaign and the future of the country. But, the facts are these:
Huckabee and Romney both have large activist Republican followings. However, and if “hate” is too strong a word it is only partially and marginally so, Romney’s supporters hate Huckabee and Huckabee supporters don’t like Romney. That includes me. It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with Romney’s words and actions. Romney strikes me as plainly philosophically ambiguous (and that’s the last thing that McCain needs) and apparently quite politically malleable. Even if he’s entirely genuine is his most recent manifestation (as Dick Morris says: his flip-flop-flip, from A to B and back again) that displays an ambiguous mind and a late embrace of what has been clear as a bell to me for forty years. And, he’s supposed to be this economic genius. Well precisely, he’s proven at the micro-success of individual companies and investors. As for the prosperity of the macro-economy in general and all Americans, I have seen nothing from him. Huckabee on the other hand advocated for The Fair Tax, which would open up both a great capital infusion into the economy and multiply opportunities for everyone. That’s another thing that doesn’t excite me about Romney: he is a caricature of a rich man for the rich that the Democrats will pummel, and they are to some small degree right about that. Heck, they are already trying to portray McCain as an out-of-touch rich man!
But as for Huckabee, there are both LDS people who are (unjustifiably but honestly, I think) distrustful of him, and economic conservatives who bought the phony and unjust “Huckabee’s a liberal” political smears and/or smart at his mere mention of concern for “Main Street” or average people and attention to Democrat-dominated Demographic groups, which are ironically the people that we must sell on conservatism. Obviously, many people on both sides of the Democrat-Republican divide prefer a more conventional blood- hatred: the kind in which both decency and Republicans lose. I think Huckabee can himself, address those populations, and should be charged to do so. But, that may be too complicated for McCain and his advisors.
If Huckabee and Romney are off the table, I’d probably favor Pawlenty.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
McCain Flashes His Sore Thumb
I have been saying that I will support McCain for the sake of humanity and security in foreign policy. And I will support him for the sake of getting sober judges on which he will be advised by people like Ted Olson. rather than having to suffer Obama’s completely untethered presumptuous dictators. And, I will support him because he will exercise some restraint of runaway spending, which is especially important as America now faces an entitlement tidal wave, in the face of which Obama would ravage America with tax increases, benefit cuts/medical rationing, and monetary inflation, and still be unable to meet the demand, in fact making matters worse. And, al of that still holds.
However, I have also long said that McCain is philosophically incoherent, which was again showcased today. When reporters challenged McCain about the “unfairness” of insurance companies covering Viagra for men but not birth control for women (and McCain had in fact, voted against coercing insurance companies), he froze and stammered, finally saying he would get back to them, later. Here's how CBS reported it. This was not exactly a lucid and confident statesman leader, which a Republican candidate has to be. Republicans don’t win by ambiguous dithering.
There are a few essential components to an effective Republican response to such questioning: 1) you must understand that the question about some nebulous idea of “fairness” is irrelevant. Even if it were a good idea, which it isn’t, for Congress to mandate how businesses to operate, the hanging untrue assumption of the question is that government can really enforce a superior product for the customer, which it can’t. And a Republican has to be able to stride directly into that confusion and explain that in a positive way to the public.
Suppose that Congress concludes that it is unfair for insurance companies to cover ED drugs but not birth-control for women. So, Congress passes a mandate for insurance companies to cover birth-control for women. Now, will things be all better because wise government has imposed “fairness?” No, the cost will go up for everyone. The companies have established policies in the interest of controlling cost and offering a competitive cost. This will not hurt their competitive position because it will apply to all of their competition as well. But, it will impose additional cost on all of them and in finality, increase the price of insurance, which everyone already says is too high.
This simple-minded costly government arbitration of judgments like “fairness” on private operations is the province of irresponsible and/or foolish Democrats. A Republican who can’t even make a decent effort to clear the fog is no clearer alternative for voters to choose. Again, it requires the clarity to immediately grasp this and the facility to express this to the public in a positive way for a Republican to distinguish himself as a superior option. I can only hope and pray that it will get better. I know that conservatives have foolishly swallowed rash and wild criticisms of Mike Huckabee. But, he would have immediately picked up on this and, at McCain’s side would advise him about engaging a clueless media.
However, I have also long said that McCain is philosophically incoherent, which was again showcased today. When reporters challenged McCain about the “unfairness” of insurance companies covering Viagra for men but not birth control for women (and McCain had in fact, voted against coercing insurance companies), he froze and stammered, finally saying he would get back to them, later. Here's how CBS reported it. This was not exactly a lucid and confident statesman leader, which a Republican candidate has to be. Republicans don’t win by ambiguous dithering.
There are a few essential components to an effective Republican response to such questioning: 1) you must understand that the question about some nebulous idea of “fairness” is irrelevant. Even if it were a good idea, which it isn’t, for Congress to mandate how businesses to operate, the hanging untrue assumption of the question is that government can really enforce a superior product for the customer, which it can’t. And a Republican has to be able to stride directly into that confusion and explain that in a positive way to the public.
Suppose that Congress concludes that it is unfair for insurance companies to cover ED drugs but not birth-control for women. So, Congress passes a mandate for insurance companies to cover birth-control for women. Now, will things be all better because wise government has imposed “fairness?” No, the cost will go up for everyone. The companies have established policies in the interest of controlling cost and offering a competitive cost. This will not hurt their competitive position because it will apply to all of their competition as well. But, it will impose additional cost on all of them and in finality, increase the price of insurance, which everyone already says is too high.
This simple-minded costly government arbitration of judgments like “fairness” on private operations is the province of irresponsible and/or foolish Democrats. A Republican who can’t even make a decent effort to clear the fog is no clearer alternative for voters to choose. Again, it requires the clarity to immediately grasp this and the facility to express this to the public in a positive way for a Republican to distinguish himself as a superior option. I can only hope and pray that it will get better. I know that conservatives have foolishly swallowed rash and wild criticisms of Mike Huckabee. But, he would have immediately picked up on this and, at McCain’s side would advise him about engaging a clueless media.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Social Security, Obama and McCain
See the promises made and broken in the introduction and history of FICA (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), below.
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
Social Security, Obama and McCain
See the promises made and broken in the introduction and history of FICA (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), below.
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)